Final Project Report Identifying Adequate Benefit Sharing Mechanisms for

Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest

Degradation (REDD+) Activities in Mexico Adriana Abardía and Lishey Lavariega

SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL FORESTRY COMMISSION (CONAFOR) AND

SUPPORTED BY THE PROGRAM ON FORESTS (PROFOR)

September 2015

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 4

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 6

I. Introduction and Background ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Project Focus ................................................................................................................................... 8

Description of the OAF Application Process ................................................................................... 9

II. Results from the OAF Application Initial Report ....................................................................... 12

Expected Benefits ........................................................................................................................... 12

Potential Beneficiares ..................................................................................................................... 13

Component 1. Institutional Capacity ................................................................................................... 14

Component 2. Legal Framework ........................................................................................................ 16

Component 3. Fund Management Capacity and Experience ................................................................. 18

Component 4. Monitoring Capacity and Experience ............................................................................. 19

Preliminary Remarks ..................................................................................................................... 20

III. Webinar Input and Results .................................................................................................... 22

IV. OAF Regional Application Workshop – Mérida, Yucatán ...................................................... 24

Workshop Notes ............................................................................................................................ 28

V. National Workshop ................................................................................................................... 29

VI. Roadmap and Final Conclusions ............................................................................................ 35

Final Project Notes ....................................................................................................................... 47

TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Table 1 Webinar Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 22

Table 2 Group Scores for a National Benefit Sharing Mechanism .................................................... 25

Table 3 Group Scores for a Sub-National Benefit Sharing Mechanism ............................................. 26

Table 4 Enabling Actions from the Regional Workshop for a National Benefit Sharing Mechanism 27

Tabla 5 Example of Enabling Actions from the Regional Workshop ................................................. 27

Table 6 Discussion of the IRE Implementation Framework .............................................................. 30

Table 7 Summary of Priority Actions from the National Workshop ................................................. 32

Figure 1 OAF Implementation Process in Mexico ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 2 Preliminary Flowchart for the IRE Implementation Framework ......................................... 34

3

4

Acronyms and Abbreviations AM-REDD+ Mexico REDD+ Alliance APDT Territorial Development Public Agents ATREDD+ BSM

REDD+ Early Action Benefit Sharing Mechanism

CDI National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples CIDRS Inter-Ministerial Rural Sustainable Development Commission CIGA Center for Research in Environmental Geography-UNAM CNBV National Bank and Securities Commission CO2 Carbon Dioxide CONABIO National Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity CONAFOR National Forestry Commission CONANP National Commission of Natural Protected Areas CONEVAL National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy CSO Civil Society Organization ENAREDD+ National REDD+ Strategy ERPA Emission Reductions Payment Agreement

ER-PIN Emission Reductions Program Idea Note

FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility FINDECA Financial Institution for Rural Enterprise Development (Oxaca) FIRA Trust Funds for Rural Development FND Fund for the development of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries FMCN Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature

FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent

GT-REDD+ REDD+ Work Group of the Inter-ministerial Commission of Climate Change ICCC/CICC Inter-Ministerial Commission of Climate Change IFAI Federal Institute of Access to Public Information and Data Protection ILO International Labour Union INALI National Institute of Indigenous Languages INEGI National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics IRE Initiative to Reduce Emissions IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature LDA Local Development Agents LDRS Law of Rural Sustainable Development LGCC General Law on Climate Change LGDFS General Law of Sustainable Forestry Development LGEEPA General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Protection of the Environment MRV Monitoring, Reporting and Verification OAF Options Assessment Framework ONG Non-Governmental Organization PEC Special Concurrent Program PROFOR Program on Forests PwC PricewaterhouseCoopers

REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, plus conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks

REDD+ BS REDD+ Benefit Sharing REDD+ CT REDD+ Mexico Technical Advisory Committee SAGARPA Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food

5

SEDATU Secretariat of Rural and Urban Development SEDUMA Secretariat of Urban Development and Environment (State Government of Yucatan) SEMA Secretariat of Ecology and Environment (State Government of Quintana Roo) SMAAS Secretariat of Environment and Sustainable Use (State Government of Campeche) SEMARNAT SRD

Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources Sustainable Rural Development

tC Tonne of Carbon UNFCCC United Nation Convention on Climate Change

6

Executive Summary As part of the framework to create a National Strategy to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest

Degradation (ENAREDD+), and to further the design of a REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism, the National

Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) and the World Bank Program on Forests (PROFOR) carried out an

exercise to apply the Options Assessment Framework (OAF), a tool developed by PROFOR to identify and

assess the capacity of a country to distribute, via different mechanisms, the benefits derived from REDD+ and

its corresponding result-based payment schemes.

The major objective was to provide guidance regarding the benefit sharing mechanism in the REDD+

institutional design process to fit the context and progress of Mexico’s REDD+. The final result of the OAF

exercise is a roadmap condensing the actions needed for the viable implementation of the REDD+ benefit

sharing mechanism. The exercise was carried out from October 2014 to May 2015.

The OAF methodological pillar includes four components considered critical for the successful development of

a benefit sharing mechanism: institutional capacity, legal framework, fund management capacity and

monitoring capacity. In accordance with the REDD+ design progress in Mexico, the OAF exercise took into

consideration performance-based benefit sharing mechanisms at the national and sub-national levels.

The OAF tool, and the above-mentioned methodological framework include a questionnaire to assess the

existence and quality of the elements (country readiness level) for each key component; the participants score

each question according to the country's capabilities. Once the scores have been assigned, the tool generates

a total score for each component equivalent to the percentage of the maximum score (100%). The

percentages indicate the degree of reliability with which the country’s institutions could implement a specific

type of benefit sharing mechanism given the current conditions.

The first step in the OAF implementation was the development of an Initial Report condensing a bibliographical

and documentary research and information from interviews with key stakeholders. This Initial Report included

a list of potential REDD+ beneficiaries, based on documents from ENAREDD+ and the Emission Reductions

Program Idea Note (ER-PIN), and a literature review and recommendations obtained during the interviews.

This document also included elements to evaluate the OAF questions in terms of the four key components:

institutional capacity, legal framework, fund management capacity and experience, and monitoring capacity

and experience. For the institutional capacity component, CONAFOR was identified as having a high level of

capacity for forest management and its human resources are highly trained specifically in REDD+. However

some challenges in the structural and institutional coordination capacity were identified, especially regarding

rural and agricultural development. The Initial Report contains information to assess the forest management

technical capacity of forest-based communities and Civil Society Organizations.

A set of REDD+ related laws and regulations was presented for the Legal Framework component. The legal

instruments to allocate forest revenues and carbon rights were identified (Article 134 of the General Law of

Forestry Sustainable Development - LGDFS); the regulations include general guidelines for rights to

sequestered carbon but not for avoided emissions. The legal framework to support the consultation with the

communities and peoples was also identified: ILO Convention No. 169, the LGDFS, and ENAREDD+ as a

guiding principle.

Regarding the fund management capacity and experience component, 10 Mexican environmental funds were

identified as having experience. In terms of access to financial services and the facility to access them in

ATREDD+ areas, a non-homogeneous banking service was detected (better access to financial services in

Jalisco and Quintana Roo compared to Chiapas and Campeche). Several independent organizations with

experience in financial and non-financial auditing services in the country were also mentioned.

7

Regarding the last component, monitoring capacity and experience, at least one organization capable of

environmental monitoring (forestry and conservation) with regional scope in the ATREDD+ was identified.

Some decentralized experience with monitoring systems was also recovered, between CONAFOR and other

independent entities. The assessment and monitoring systems governing CONAFOR were presented:

program implementation additional assessments by Mexican universities, and evaluations programmed by

CONEVAL to assess the design, performance and results.

For the second step, a webinar was conducted to provide feedback for these early findings with the

participation of REDD+ and rural/forestry development experts. The result was a set of suggestions to

increase the information baseline and recommendations to address the OAF questions. These results were

used to adapt the OAF questions to the country’s context and enrich the report which was the major input for

the next phase of the OAF.

The third step consisted of the scoring of the OAF questions e in a two-day workshop in the city of Mérida. The

most important results were: 54% overall scoring for a national level benefit sharing mechanism based on

performance; the score for a sub-national benefit sharing mechanism was 40%, indicating that in general,

there is more readiness at the national than the sub-national level to implement a benefit sharing mechanism

based on performance. According to the OAF methodology, given these conditions it is necessary to carry out

a set of enabling actions for a viable implementation of the mechanisms discussed. As a second result, the

workshop generated a subset of prioritized and detailed actions.

As the final step, a national workshop was conducted to validate the results of the regional workshop and to

obtain concrete measures for a viable REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism. This workshop defined the set of

enabling actions for the roadmap to design and implement a benefit sharing mechanism based on

performance, at national and sub-national level, in Mexico. The roadmap is presented as an agendas for

CONAFOR. Some of the conclusions include:

To engage the rural development sector in the REDD+ design and implementation and specifically in the

benefit sharing, we propose strengthening coordination spaces such as CIDRS and CICC, and other

actions such as reactivating the Territorial Projects Work Group.

For an effective cooperation between the national and state governments regarding sustainable territorial

management and forest conservation, we propose establishing a formal agreement between the federal

and state government to implement the REDD+ strategies.

For the legal instruments to fully support public access to information, we propose implementing capacity

building mechanisms to allow the communities to exercise this right.

For CONAFOR and the state governments to have the capacity to define legal norms to design and

operate funds, we propose conducting a best practice study and use it as a guide to define the

jurisdictional funds.

To facilitate the access to financial services for community groups participating in REDD+, we propose

mapping the sources and financial mechanisms, designing a worksheet and establishing agreements

with financial institutions that would offer flexible products tailored to the financing needs of the

producers and residents of the REDD+ implementation areas.

To decentralize the monitoring systems as part of a benefit sharing mechanism, we propose developing

a standardized monitoring process, an operational manual (monitoring guide for direct users) and

strengthen local institutions so they can help support the benefit sharing mechanisms, and monitor the

socioeconomic impact (programs and incentives).

This product is expected to serve as working material for CONAFOR, in its institutional management and

REDD+ leadership and to propose actions to other institutions.

8

I. Background and Introduction The government of Mexico, particularly CONAFOR, is interested in developing a benefit sharing mechanism

(BSM) required from participating in international schemes for REDD+ result-based payments, including the

Initiative to Reduce Emissions with the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). A key to the success of the

REDD+ implementation in Mexico is the design of adequate benefit sharing mechanisms that guarantee that

the financial and non-financial resources are transferred fairly and efficiently to promote the goals of the

initiative.

To help design a mechanism to distribute benefits derived from the participation in REDD+ as requested by CONAFOR, the Options Assessment Framework (OAF) was applied to help decision makers in identifying and developing benefit sharing mechanisms suitable to the REDD+ context and approach in Mexico. OAF is a tool based on methodological documents and a questionnaire that evaluates the existence and quality of the four key components in the country. PROFOR and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) developed this tool to help those responsible for designing and implementing REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms to evaluate the readiness level of a country to implement certain type of benefit sharing mechanism1. Based on the readiness level of each country, the tool proposes the effort (enabling actions) necessary to implement the mechanism selected. The major objective of the OAF exercise is to provide guidance regarding the benefit sharing mechanism in the REDD+ institutional design process in accordance with the context and progress of a particular country. The final result of the OAF implementation is a roadmap listing the enabling actions to support the design of the REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism. By implementing the OAF tool, the country's situation in terms of four key components considered critical for the successful development of a benefit sharing mechanism was evaluated: institutional capacity, legal framework, fund management capacity and monitoring capacity.

Project Focus CONAFOR is the lead agency tasked with developing the REDD+ program. CONAFOR is committed to reducing deforestation and forest degradation and protecting the environmental services generated by forests, to which end it has developed and implemented programs such as payment for environmental services, community forestry and sustainable forest management. It is also investing significantly in capacity building to be able to address the needs of implementing the country’s REDD+ program. Mexico presented its REDD Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP)14 to the Participants Committee (PC) of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) in 2010 and it was approved in March of that year. Since 2010, Mexico has been working on the participatory development of its National REDD+ Strategy (ENAREDD+). That same year the CICC published Mexico’s Vision on REDD+: Towards a National Strategy, which included key targets and definitions that guided the development of the strategy and thus emphasized the importance of the inclusion of public policies to promote sustainable rural development, incorporating and strengthening community management of forests and conservation of their biodiversity. The Emission Reductions Initiative is aligned with the institutional arrangements proposed in the National REDD+ Strategy. The potential actions of the Emission Reductions Initiative will take place in the early REDD+ action (ATREDD+) areas that provide an

1 The OAF methodological framework establishes four key components that can be evaluated as options combining two distinctive characteristics (national/sub-national, input/performance(or results)). Thus 4 types of BSM are theoretically possible: (i) input-based national level, (ii) input-based sub-national level, (iii) results-based national level, and ,(iv) results-based sub-national level. CONAFOR was especially interested in evaluating the readiness level of results-based BSM at the national and sub-national levels. Therefore these two (results-based BSM) were the focus of the OAF exercise for Mexico. .

9

opportunity for testing specific actions in the field and promoting sustainable rural development. The Emission Reductions Initiative will be implemented in five Mexican states selected for early REDD+ Actions (ATREDD+): Jalisco, Campeche, Chiapas, Quintana Roo and Yucatan. (These areas were selected on account of having the highest rates of forest loss and having the highest environmental values especially for biodiversity and hydrological contributions. These areas contemplate different land uses and activities of different sectors. As a requirement of approval of its program of REDD+ in the early action areas, Mexico needs to show progress in developing BSMs for these areas. CONAFOR indicated its interest in looking closely at performance (or results)-based BSMs and thus, and consistent with the REDD+ implementation framework2, the OAF application considered benefit sharing mechanisms based on performance at the national and sub-national level.

The results of the OAF application will assist the decision making process and the final design of the REDD+

benefit sharing mechanisms will be made by the relevant institutional stakeholders. The OAF is a participatory

tool to assess a country’s specific capacity to design and implement benefit sharing mechanisms. The OAF

tool does not dictate which mechanism is better but rather it informs the effort needed to identify the type of

mechanism selected by CONAFOR and its partner participants in the REDD+ design and implementation

process+.

Description of the OAF Application Process The OAF application was participatory and included the opinion of experts from the government, academia, civil society organizations, and Mexican forest landholder representatives as well as other relevant REDD+ development agencies. To begin the OAF exercise, data on the four key components was compiled in a document called Initial Report

which was socialized in November 2014. The four components evaluated by OAF are: institutional capacity,

legal framework, fund management capacity, and monitoring capacity. For more about THE OAF structure and

its methodological basis, see Chapter 3 in the Annex: Initial Report. The preparation of this report included a

review of the bibliography and interviews with key stakeholders and REDD+ expert in Mexico.

After the socialization of the Initial Report, a series of discussion with stakeholders and experts reviewed the

content and obtained feedback to improve the sources and content of the information for the OAF application

exercise in a regional workshop. A webinar was held on December 2014 to obtain feedback on the initial

findings with the participation of representatives from state and federal government, civil society organizations,

international organizations, and universities. This participatory exercise generated precise information,

suggestions to increase the information, and other details that were incorporated to the report.

The updated information helped adapt the OAF questions to the country’s context in the four key areas, and

thus generate an OAF tailored to Mexico and appropriate to use at the regional workshop.

The OAF exercise was conducted in a regional workshop in Mérida (an early action area) in early January

2015. The workshop involved dynamic group work based on the experience of the participants with each of the

OAF components. The groups scored each component question and generated a national and a sub-national

2 Defined by various REDD+ related documents: Mexico REDD+ Vision (2010), National REDD+ Strategy (April 2014), Design and Implementation of Special Programs, Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building in REDD+ Early Action Areas (ATREDD+), Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (ER-PIN); representing Mexico’s proposal to the FCPF Carbon Fund, among others.

10

score for the viable implementation of a benefit sharing mechanism based on performance. The OAF results

indicated the level of effort and training needed for the viable implementation of the selected benefit sharing

mechanism. In other words, the participants generated a set of enabling actions, prioritized and discussed

during the workshop. The scores and the set of enabling actions were the final outcome of the regional OAF

exercise, see Annex III: Regional Workshop Report.

A national workshop was held in March 2015 to validate the results of the regional workshop and specify

concrete actions for a viable REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism. This workshop defined a set of enabling

actions that make up the roadmap to design and implement a benefit sharing mechanism based on

performance in Mexico, given the evaluated conditions. The workshop included a discussion of the

implementation framework for the Initiative to Reduce Emissions (IRE) linked to the roles each entity should

adopt in the REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism (CONAFOR, Jurisdictional Funds, State Governments,

Implementing Agents, Ejidos and Communities). An additional step to facilitate the adoption of the

recommendations of this consultancy for the design process was the reclassification of the enabling actions

into a set of institutional agendas for CONAFOR. The outcome of this effort is presented in the Roadmap,

Chapter 6 of this document.

The agendas that make up the roadmap are: 1) Coordination; 2) Applied Research; 3) Strengthening Public

Entities (CONAFOR, CONABIO, SAGARPA), Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), Implementing Agents3,

Ejidos and Communities; 4) Tool Development; 5) Training; and 6) Legal Framework Adaptation and

Institutional Responsibilities.

3 (ER-PIN CONAFOR, Abril 2014) Pg. 40-41.

11

A list of the enabling actions to support the design of benefit-sharing mechanisms being

considered in Mexico

Figure 1: OAF Implementation Process in Mexico

12

II. Results from the OAF Application: Initial Report

The main findings of the initial report are presented here. The complete report is attached as a separate

document, Initial Report4, and has the following content:

1. Expected Benefits

2. Potential Beneficiaries

3. Description of the Option Assessment Framework

4. Initial Report for the Four Key Components

a. Component 1. Institutional Capacity

b. Component 2. Legal Framework

c. Component 3. Fund Management Capacity and Experience

d. Component 4. Monitoring Capacity and Experience

5. Preliminary Remarks

Expected Benefits In compliance with the procedures for accessing FCPF funds, CONAFOR prepared an Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (ER-PIN) to participate in the FCPF Carbon Fund. The ER-PIN presents an implementation model with a landscape approach and mechanisms for intergovernmental cooperation. This document estimated a flow of about 60 million dollars for the 2016-2020 period to be transferred from a World Bank trust fund to a federal entity in Mexico5. According to the ER-PIN, the resources to pay for REDD+ results should be disbursed as payment for activities included in an Investment Plan previously evaluated by a collegial body. To implement the early stages of these investment plans, and for the avoided emissions to reach the magnitude committed to the FCPF Carbon Fund, the Mexican government and the private, social and international stakeholders will invest resources in actions to improve the forest conditions and the capabilities of the ejidos and communities within the ATREDD+. From the methodological perspective of the Program on Forests, the above investments are also considered as benefits with diverse sources of financing and distributed via public or private investment mechanisms6, disbursed during the policy preparation and implementation phases prior to the result-based payment phase. From the Mexican institutional perspective, these enabling investments to reduce emissions are considered co-benefits, initially not distributable but rather assigned to each Investment Plan approved. Thus, under the principle of additionality7, only the resources derived from international schemes or carbon markets for avoided emission are considered as benefits8. The results of these initial investments will be considered public and private assets that will likely improve the governance, environmental, social and institutional conditions in the ATREDD+. The distribution of additional benefits (payment for results from avoided emissions) will be possible at the territorial but not the individual level, and will happen after the emission reduction reports from each participating state are issued.

4 Available in Spanish upon request.

5 (ER-PIN CONAFOR, April 2014). Pg. 57. 6 (PwC-Behr, 2012) Table 1.1 Pg. 6. 7 Additionality: Benefits are awarded to actions that prove emission reductions or increased removals in the forestry

sector that would not have occurred in the absence of the REDD+ mechanism. Mexican Civil Council for Sustainable

Forestry, AC (2014). Summary for Decision Makers “Elementos para el diseño del mecanismo de distribución de

beneficios para REDD+ en México: Informe final de consultoría”. México: Alianza México REDD+. Pg 2. 8 Consejo Civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostenible, A.C. (2014), Balderas Torres, A. y Skutsch, M.(2014) pg. 2-3.

13

Potential Beneficiaries The official position identifies two elements regarding the REDD+ beneficiaries9:

ENAREDD+ defines two groups of beneficiaries: landholders and others responsible for activities that reduce deforestation and forest degradation10.

ER-PIN recognizes the right of title holders to the benefits of avoided emissions, but not those of people/groups lacking title to the land11.

The following list of potential REDD+ beneficiaries is based on the current legal framework, the source of the demands over the REDD+ benefits, and possible inclusion mechanisms proposed in the relevant literature.

Individual/group owners or holders of forest land: Private property owners (entities or individuals)

Ejidos and communities. Ejido/community members.

Indigenous peoples and communities on forest land: Indigenous peoples. Ejidos and indigenous

communities.

Benefit holders of forest land: Groups or individuals recognized by the ejido and community

assemblies or that have an agreement with the ejido and community members; tenants on private

land.

Untitled settlers living on communal/ejido land: Women and organized women's groups, youth

groups, and other residents living on communal/ejido land.

People and groups with properties and activities outside the forest: Cattle ranchers, farmers, or people involved in mining, industry, energy, real estate and tourism development activities.

Currently, in Mexico, only landowners have the rights to benefits through avoided deforestation. However, there is an effort to recognize the relationship of non-owners to the forest so that they can be included in initial investment plans and also become eligible for results-based payments. Based on the literature review and the interviews, three options were identified to incorporate untitled people and groups living on forest land into the benefit sharing mechanisms:

1. Adapt the ejido and community bylaws to allow contracts that incorporate clauses for the rights to the benefits of avoided emissions.

2. Assist in generating ad hoc agreements, case by case, with the ejidos and communities12. 3. Amend the current legal framework to recognize different types of ownership regarding the right to

the benefits of avoided emissions13.

Finally, it should be noted that the government has excluded itself from taking any results-based payments,

even though it owns forest land. However, it has allowed itself to avail of REDD+ program funds for capacity

building activities as a way to help other landowners benefit from results-based payments.

9 Associated only with the property of sequestered carbon, the rights to avoided emissions are not recognized. 10 (ENAREDD+, 2014) Pg. 34. 11ER-PIN clearly indicates that the BSM will be consulted with the local stakeholders, including extensive clarification regarding the people and groups that will access the benefits, as well as the mechanisms to incorporate them. 12 From the interviews, we perceived that these agreements may be unstable and that there are few tools available to

grant legal certainty to the untitled groups. 13 A document by IUCN discusses the REDD+ legal framework and proposes option to include in REDD+ the stakeholders lacking ownership of forest lands. Carrillo Fuentes, J.C, Published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (UICN), Regional Office for Mexico, Central America Central and the Caribbean. San José, Costa Rica. 2015.

14

Key OAF Components

This is a summary of key findings for the four key components of the OAF methodology prepared using the OAF questions to evaluate a benefit sharing mechanism based on performance at the national and sub-national level.14

Component 1. Institutional Capacity This component assesses the capacity of federal and state government agencies, civil society, communities,

ejidos and private sector in the following areas: forest technical management (knowledge, tools, presence in

the territory), community development, REDD+ expertise, intergovernmental/inter-sectoral coordination,

involvement of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), and private sector in forest public policy, financial

management systems and support for the ejidos and communities in terms of agricultural/forest management

issues.

CONAFOR and State Government Institutional Capacity

The information gathered and the interviews with experts show that CONAFOR has good forest management

capabilities. In terms of REDD+, it has highly trained human resources (although insufficient compared to the

work load resulting from increased activities to design and pilot models). The staff at the central offices had

more REDD+ technical capacity compared to the staff at the state level. In 2014, REDD+ liaisons were added

to the state level offices. CONAFOR has good REDD+ design capabilities but less capability in terms of

implementation, inter-institutional agency coordination and field presence. The interview respondents agreed

that there are great challenges in both technical and budgetary strengthening.

The states have reached different level of progress in terms of inter-institutional planning and coordination:

Campeche: Has a Climate Change State Plan and an established Inter-Ministerial Commission on Climate

Change (CICC). Is part of the REDD+ Peninsular Strategy.

Chiapas: Has a Climate Change State Plan and an established CICC. The REDD+ State Strategy is under

development.

Jalisco: Its Climate Change State Plan is being developed; the CICC has been decreed. The REDD+ State

Strategy is under development.

Quintana Roo: Has a Climate Change State Plan; the CICC has been decreed. Is part of the REDD+

Peninsular Strategy.

Yucatan: Has a Climate Change State Plan; the CICC has been decreed. Is part of the REDD+ Peninsular

Strategy.

The coordination and collaboration between the federal and state governments faces major challenges.

Federal agencies typically implement their programs through delegations, offices that depend on the central

unit and operate fully on federal resources, plans and procedures. In general, the view of the respondents is

that CONAFOR is modeled after other federal agencies, which act at the central level and directly over the

14 In light of the preceding discussion on types of benefits, it is important to clarify that OAF tool focuses on monetary benefits. The non-monetary benefits (or co-benefits, as defined in Mexico) are being considered separately, and are not the focus of this paper.

15

territories, with little influence from the state governments. In this respect, the REDD+ Early Action Areas15 are

a coordination effort between different levels and sectors of the government. A different situation is observed in

the rural development sector functioning under the Special Concurrent Program (PEC) for the planning and

implementation of agricultural policy. Here, the Inter-Ministerial Commission for Sustainable Rural

Development (CIDRS) and the rural development councils have direct influence. The state trusts that

implement the PEC resources, function under significant dialogue and coordination between the state and

federal government.

The most important inter-institutional REDD+ coordination effort in Mexico is between the forestry and the

agricultural and rural development sectors. The major findings are: 1) There is a major coordination challenge

between the forestry, environmental and agricultural entities to implement REDD+ in terms of regulation,

implementation, and planning; and 2) There are important areas of agreement between the entities mentioned

(CICC, CIDRS) but they do not include binding decisions in terms of policy design or implementation; this

reduces their chances of achieving high level program or budget agreements. CONAFOR promoted a

Territorial Actions Work Group within the CIDRS to monitor and coordinate the REDD+ Early Actions. This

group had little activity in 2014 and it might need to be re-launched to resume its activities.

The federal government engagement with the CSOs and private sector in REDD+ issues is apparent in two

areas: ENAREDD+ Work Group (GT-ENAREDD+) within the National Forest Council (CONAF) and the

Technical Advisory Committees to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (CTC REDD+) at

the national and state levels. There is also an academic sector actively involved in REDD+ design through

consultancies. Nevertheless, only a few second-tier organizations were found to be participating actively in

performance monitoring, policy decisions, and forest policy risk assessment.

In terms of communication skills, CONAFOR has a social communication area and has launched the preparation of the "Communication Strategy for the Preparatory Process for a REDD+ Mechanism in Mexico" with support from the Mexico REDD+ Alliance. CONAFOR has agreements with the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples to use the community radio spaces; and to train indigenous broadcasters in forestry aspects. It also has an agreement with the National Institute of Indigenous Languages (INALI) for the translation of broadcast material. According to the experts, some of the REDD+ communication challenges include:

1. Disseminate REDD+ among the ejidos and communities, using clear and culturally correct language.

2. Clarify key REDD+ concepts in the rural areas, as there are significant gaps in the technical

knowledge; there are also gaps in the level of knowledge among ejido/community members.

3. Several actions defined as REDD+, have been previously implemented in the ejidos and communities

under other names; Determine which contexts should use a REDD+ adapted language.

4. Strengthen the oral communication channels.

In terms of the capacity to store and process financial, property, and legal information required to manage a

national payment scheme, CONAFOR has good fund management capacity.

15 The Special Programs are CONAFOR efforts to direct resources to specific sites with high rates of deforestation and

degradation. The programs promote sustainable productive activities, with a strategic development in response to specific

problems. CONAFOR operates special programs in the three REDD+ Early Action Areas: Lacandona Rainforest (PESL)

Jalisco Coastal Watersheds (PECCJ) and the Yucatan Peninsula (PEPY).

16

Capacity of the Implementing Agents: Territorial Development Public Agents (APDTs)16

Inter-Municipal Boards

There are four boards in Jalisco and one in each state of Yucatan, Quintana Roo and Chiapas.

The general objectives are to promote environmental conservation and local sustainable development.

They receive support from the Forest and Climate Change Project (CONAFOR) and the REDD+ Local

Governance Project (Latin American Investment Facility) to help consolidate and strengthen their territorial

and landscape planning and operational capacity; assets; and institutional structure to begin operations.

The boards have different levels of management capabilities17.

Mesoamerican Biological Corridor

Belongs to CONABIO’s Biological Corridors and Resources coordination.

It has areas and staff specialized in REDD+ and has presence in the ATREDD+.

Works closely with the ejidos and communities to formulate and manage project funding.

Capacity of the CSOs Working with REDD+

We identified some CSO with knowledge and technical, forest management, and community development

capacity to generate baseline data and monitor forest carbon, biodiversity, and socio-economic parameters.

During the project, it became clear that these capacities were not homogeneous in all the ATREDD+ and it is

necessary to implement a capacity building program for the CSOs.

Capacity of Forest-Based Communities

Mexico has an advanced community forestry management panorama with broad participation. Several ejidos,

communities and forestry producer’s organizations have participated in the REDD+ design. These

stakeholders were analyzed in terms of their technical, organizational, forest management and conservation

capacity to support, monitor, and report REDD+ activities. During the project, it became clear that the capacity

level was not homogeneous in all the ATREDD+ and a capacity building program was necessary for the forest-

based communities.

Component 2. Legal Framework The OAF questions regarding the Legal Framework focus on identifying the existence and quality of the enforcement of the national and state legislation in terms of ownership and possession of forest lands, the rights to forest revenue, the relationship between forest ownership and carbon ownership, the aligning of national and local plans, access to information, and the rule of law. Given the particular land ownership context in Mexico, the participants suggested that this component should be evaluated considering the legislation governing the agricultural and forest rights. The following basic legislation should be considered while defining a benefit sharing mechanism:

Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico (Articles 2 and 27).

16 The ER-PIN defines certain characteristics for the APDTs and the last official discussions on this topic agree that the

potential stakeholders will be the Inter-municipal Boards and the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. 17 The Jalisco Boards are older and have more capacity than the newer boards.

17

Agrarian Law (Articles 23 and 45).

General Law of Sustainable Forestry Development -LGDFS- (Article 5 and 134)

Law of Rural Sustainable Development (LGDRS).

General Law on Climate Change (LGCC)

Mexico is a signatory to the ILO Convention 169 which among other things requires that indigenous and tribal peoples are consulted on issues affecting them.

National Climate Change Strategy (ENCC). Articles 2 and 27 of the National Constitution are two most important regulatory elements governing aspects of ownership of the land, forests, carbon, and regulatory elements for indigenous peoples. These in turn, give rise to regulatory laws such as the Agrarian Law, LGDFS, and LGEEPA. Regarding the state legal framework for ATREDD+:

All the ATREDD+ states have a Law of Sustainable Forestry Development, except Yucatan;

Only Jalisco and Yucatan have a Law on Sustainable Rural Development;

Quintana Roo is the only state with a Law for Climate Change Action; and

All the states have a Law on Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection.

One of the most important characteristics evaluated by the OAF is whether there are principles and instruments protecting the rights of forest landholders in relation to the ownership and use of forest land. Mexican law contemplates these principles in Articles 2 and 27 of the Constitution, and also in international agreements signed by Mexico as well as secondary and state laws. These principles are: The right of indigenous peoples to self-determination; the right to a healthy environment; and stewardship of the national development to ensure sustainability and integration. In this context, Article 27 of the Constitution is particularly relevant as it recognizes the legal status of the ejidos and communities, and protects their ownership of the land, both to establish human settlements and for productive activities18. Nevertheless, the participants insisted on the lack of tools for the effective enforcement of the laws recognizing these rights. Regarding the clear allocation of forest revenue to title holders, Article 134 of the LGDFS infers that the owners of forest lands are entitled to the forest revenues. The types of owners are defined in the Agrarian Law: private property, ejido, communal property, colonies. All owners with full rights to the land are entitled to the forest revenue and may perform legal acts (agreements, contracts) with third parties (individuals or entities) for the use or enjoyment of the land they own. Regarding the legal support for public access to government information, the federal government approved a General Transparency Law in March 2015 establishing sanctions for lack of transparency. On the other hand, CONAFOR has a Citizen Service Mechanism (MAC) consisting of three parts: 1) Internal Control Organ (OIC). 2) Liaison Unit of the Federal Institute of Access to Public Information and Data Protection (IFAI). 3) Citizen Attention and Information Services (SIAC). There are also civil and academic efforts to monitor and evaluate public actions and budgets carried out by national and international transparency independent organizations such as Open Budget Index, Artículo 19, Transparencia Mexicana, FUNDAR, among others. In relation to the laws governing the rights to forest carbon and land ownership, Article 134 of the LGDFS contains general ownership guidelines for sequestered forest carbon but not for avoided emissions. Regarding the legal framework for the implementation of community consultations, Mexico is a signatory to the ILO Convention 169 (which provides guidelines for the Free, Prior and Informed Consent-FPIC), also in Article

18 Carrillo Fuentes, J.C. (2015). Análisis del marco legal para la implementación de mecanismos de distribución de

beneficios REDD+ en México. Serie Técnica: Gobernanza Forestal y Economía, Número 3. San José, Costa Rica: UICN.

18

134 of the LGDFS; ENAREDD+ adopts the FPIC as a guiding principle. The National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples (CDI) has a protocol to implement the consultations with indigenous peoples and communities.

Component 3. Fund Management Capacity and Experience The OAF methodology evaluated the capacity and experience to manage funds based on the presence of national and state environmental funds; the existence of organizations capable of monitoring budget programs, anti-corruption and embezzlement mechanisms; the experience of environmental programs disbursing funds to individuals and communities; the existence of a payment network (banks and subsidiaries) and financial institutions with tolerance for risk and adequate repayment terms for rural communities. The presence of 13 environmental funds show that the country’s organizations and public entities have the capacity and experience to create, operate and maintain financial schemes with public, private, national, and international funds. Regarding the banking and financial inclusion in Mexico to allow community groups to open accounts and have easy access to low cost financial services, the ATREDD+ have the following characteristics: Jalisco and Quintana Roo have better financial services. Transportation costs are high for residents of the

Maya areas in Quintana Roo (higher than the national average).

Chiapas and Campeche have poor access to commercial and development banks, however, (or perhaps

because of it) they are the states with the largest microfinance opportunities.

Jalisco has increased presence of cooperatives.

Chiapas has the lowest number of ATMs for every 10,000 adults.

Some loan and loan subsidy systems available for the forestry sector were identified. Some of these schemes are part of the partnerships established by CONAFOR with other public entities (such as FIRA) and others are part of the support programs for rural development sector. In terms of anticorruption aspects, we identified the following public resource monitoring and control tools (same as other sectors): Federal High Audit Office, Ministry of Public Administration, Internal Control Organs (areas within each federal entity). The auditing of private trusts is done directly by the Tax Administration Service. In terms of the performance of environmental programs to disburse and monitor payment at the national level, CONAFOR has experience with the Environmental Services Program, as a tool to promote conservation. It involves payments to a large number of beneficiaries, and verification of results (using field and satellite methods). As part of the effort to determine the experience of independent organizations in terms of financial and non-financial auditing (i.e. governance) of the fund management processes, we identified the following civil organizations involved in REDD+ auditing or monitoring:

• Transparencia Mexico

• Mexican Civil Council for Sustainable Forestry

• Mexican Institute of Competitiveness

• Artículo 19 A.C. Regarding the legislation that allows the establishment and protection of REDD+ state trust fund we found that

the state trust funds are governed by the laws for budget and fiscal responsibility and the laws ruling

19

government-owned federal corporations. In these cases, the Ministries of Finance and Treasury act as sole

trustees. Relevant features of the trust fund legislation in the ATREDD+ states are:

The trusts are considered government-owned public entities.

The degree of budgetary autonomy is low when they depend on resource allocations from the state

treasury; this forces them to abide to the state budget approval cycles and procedures.

In every case, they are prohibited to take any investment risk on the trust fund capital.

Participation of the states’ comptroller agents and the government agencies’ Finance Secretaries is

required.

Public trust funds are required to clearly identify their contribution to the development goals of the

state.

Component 4. Monitoring Capacity and Experience According to the OAF, the monitoring capacity and experience19 involves the following aspects:

Presence of organizations that monitor and inform about government programs

Ability of the government to inform frequently about environmental program spending

Ability of the federal government to delegate program monitoring to third parties (state governments

or external agencies).

Use of monitoring and surveillance data in the case of forest programs.

Experience using GIS data and ground verification by the agency implementing the benefit sharing mechanism.

Regarding the presence of organizations with sufficient experience combining forest monitoring, social orientation and ecological conservation, the following organizations with regional forest monitoring capabilities20 were identified:

Bioasesores in the Pucc and Chenes region of Yucatán and Campeche.

Biodiversidad, Medio Ambiente, Suelo y Agua, A.C (BIOMASA) in Chiapas.

Instituto para el Desarrollo Sustentable en Mesoamérica, A.C. in Chiapas.

PRONATURA, in the municipality of Holpelchén, Campeche.

Grupo Mesófilo A.C. in Oaxaca.

AMBIENTARE, A.C. in Oaxaca.

JIRA in Jalisco.

The Yucatan Peninsula has the Maya Forest Observatory as part of the REDD+ Yucatan Peninsula Regional Strategy. The goal is to inform the forest management and policy decisions, and contribute to the National Forest Monitoring System. Its creation was consolidated in 2014 led by the Mexico REDD+ Alliance+.

During this project, it became clear that although there are a number of civil society organizations, their

monitoring capabilities are not homogeneous within the ATREDD+. A capacity building program for these

stakeholders is recommended.

19 OAF defines monitoring in a wide sense, not restricted to measuring carbon emissions or monitoring land use changes.

It involves monitoring public programs and budgets, and socioeconomic and productive variables. It refers to monitoring in

general as a tool. 20 National initiatives have been crucial to strengthen the capacity of these stakeholders, including: Mexico REDD+

Alliance projects and the Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FMCN).

20

Regarding the external monitoring of environmental programs, CONAFOR has a wealth of public access

external evaluations of its public programs carried out since 2002, mainly by the University of Chapingo. There

are also other evaluations programmed by CONEVAL.

Regarding the capacity of CONAFOR to incorporate monitoring and evaluation data into the forest

management planning, we found that this institution relies on INEGI, through its land use department, to

assess the availability and current status of the natural resources. CONAFOR also determines the eligible

areas in its environmental service programs using this information and data from other institutes such as

INECC. CONAFOR responds to CONEVAL’s assessments using the Mechanism to Monitoring Areas for

Improvement Derived from Reports and Assessments. This mechanism evaluates the improvements made

and identifies aspects that can be incorporated into program management processes.

This component involves several questions related to the use of GIS to integrate a Monitoring, Reporting and

Verification system. In Mexico, there is an initiative underway and significant advance in a MRV system within

the framework of the Mexico-Norway cooperation program through the REDD+ Strengthening and South-

South Cooperation fund.

Preliminary Remarks The following summary of the Initial Report of the application of the Options Assessment Framework

condenses some observations that coincide with the concerns expressed by the respondents.

REDD+ Benefits

The design for a REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism in Mexico contemplates a mixed system

including performance-based payments and payment for input/supplies, based on the preliminary

design for the IRE implementation framework.

The benefits distributed during the results-based phase will be transfers for activities previously

agreed in the investment plans. The implementing agents, communities and CONAFOR participate in

the preparation of the investment plans, following the criteria established by the Jurisdictional Funds.

Beneficiaries

ENAREDD+ defines two groups of beneficiaries: forest owners and residents of areas implementing

activities to stop deforestation. The first group (forest landowners) has fully supported ownership

rights over sequestered carbon, but not over the right to benefits from avoided emissions. The second

group currently lacks legal rights to sequestered carbon. Several mechanisms have been suggested

by experts to include these stakeholders in the benefit sharing mechanisms21.

Several groups having clear potential to participate in REDD+ were identified:

o Individual/group owners or holders of forest land

o Indigenous peoples and communities on forest land

o Benefit holders of forest land

o Untitled settlers living on communal/ejido lands

21 For example, the option presented by J. Carrillo in Carrillo Fuentes, J.C, Published by the International Union for

Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Regional Office for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. San José, Costa Rica.

2015. Or the models proposed by Balderas & Skutsch in Balderas Torres, A. & Skutsch, M. Published by the International

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Regional Office for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. San José,

Costa Rica. 2014.

21

o People and groups with properties and activities outside the forests

Institutional Capacity

CONAFOR has high capacity for planning and design, but perceived weakness in terms of

organizational structure to support REDD+

There is some coordination experience within the federal government, represented by CONAFOR

and state governments, through their environmental units; but there are some outstanding

coordination issues.

There are great challenges in terms of interagency coordination in the forestry, agriculture and rural

development sectors.

We identified some CSOs with knowledge and technical, forest management, and community

development capacity. These capacities were not homogeneous in all the ATREDD+ and it is

necessary to implement a capacity building program

The Inter-Municipal Boards have operated as implementing agents in Jalisco since 2007 promoting

territorial integrated management and natural resources management to establish the social, political

and economic conditions and contribute to improve the quality of life of its inhabitants. Inter-Municipal

Boards in other states such as Quintana Roo and Yucatan are legally formed but their operating

systems are currently under construction.

Legal Framework

The Mexican legal framework supports the decisions of ejidos and communities. This implies that the

decisions about the inclusion of non-owners fall on them. Throughout the project, we have outlined

other design aspects and possibly these inclusion decisions may be promoted by other REDD+

strategy agents: the APDTs.

The rights of indigenous peoples are protected in two ways, but both lack enforcement tools:

o Forest landowners (Agrarian Law and General Law of Sustainable Forestry Development).

o The legal requirement for Free, Prior and Informed Consent for any action taking place in the

areas they own and areas where they live (the LGDFS and the National Commission for the

Development of Indigenous Peoples (CDI) require a protocol to implement consultations with

indigenous peoples and communities, in accordance with the standards of the ILO

Convention 169).

There is a legal framework to ensure transparency and certain tools to enforce it but at the

international level, the country ranks very low in terms of openness and access to information.

Fund Management Capacity and Experience

The federal government and specialized institutions have sufficient experience and capacity for fund

management.

The legal framework allows the creation of state funds, regulated by the Mexican tax laws and

government-owned agencies at the federal entity level.

There are different levels of access to financial services within the ATREDD+.

Monitoring Capacity and Experience

22

Capacity building for forest monitoring in Mexico is aimed at the federal and state levels. In

addition, CONAFOR supports the development of a proposal to strengthen community-based

monitoring as a tool to help territorial management.

Although some monitoring, reporting and evaluation mechanisms for programs and environmental

spending were found in SEMARNAT and CONAFOR, they cannot be perceived as monitoring and

impact assessments reports.

Capacity building for forest monitoring includes other relevant stakeholders supporting technical

and methodological processes such as the civil organizations. We found at least one CSO with

regional scope capabilities within the ATREDD+ but with non-homogeneous monitoring capabilities.

Significant progress has been made to develop a national MRV system to support the REDD+

strategy, it will be particularly useful for the benefit sharing result verification mechanisms.

III. Webinar Input and Results

A Webinar was held as part of the process to implement a participatory OAF and to obtain feedback on the

first findings of the Initial Report. It was held on Thursday December 11th, 2014 with the following objectives:

1) Answer questions about the report and project methodology from officials, and representatives of the CSOs and academia. 2) Identify gaps in the information or in the focus of the questions. The session was attended by 31 representatives from the government, civil society organizations, international

organizations, and academia. The dynamic of the webinar was the presentation of the project by the team from

PROFOR and CONAFOR; the OAF methodology; and the main results of the Initial Report. Below is a

summary of the most important contributions from the participants. The full report of the webinar is in Annex II:

Webinar Report.

Table 1: Webinar Conclusions

Section Comments

Benefits / Beneficiaries

1. The participants suggested reviewing the rights of the owners to define the activities in the Investment Plans, according to the guidelines in the current REDD+ special programs, the owners do not have the right to decide over specific elements, they can only select from a group of pre-set options. CONAFOR replied that there will be a broad menu of activities from which beneficiaries will be able to choose the most suitable for each region.

2. The participants proposed reviewing the possible beneficiaries, because including non-owners could cause benefit appropriation issues, and goes against what has been implemented to date in the REDD+ special programs.

Institutional Capacity

1. The participants perceived very poor/no coordination capacity between CONAFOR - SAGARPA.

2. The participants suggested strengthening the coordination experience between CONAFOR - SAGARPA regarding the special programs.

3. The participants suggested strengthening the capacity of CONAFOR to coordinate various public policy institutions in the rural areas.

Legal 1. The participants suggested reviewing the experience with the Yaqui people and the

23

Section Comments

Framework National Commission for the Development of Indigenous people (CDI) protocol regarding the implementation of consultations, to complete the assessment of the implementation tools for the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) mechanisms.

2. Regarding transparency and access to public information, the participants suggested revising the National Strategy for Citizen Participation in the Environmental Sector of the Coordinating Unit for Social Participation and Transparency (UCPAST).

3. The participants suggested emphasizing, in the initial report, that the indigenous territories should be defined in order to implement certain indigenous rights.

4. The participants suggested considering the Forest State Boards and the Forest Regional Boards as key stakeholders to strengthen the transparency and accountability mechanisms.

Fund Management

1. The participants suggested detailing the information about banking and financial services, taking into account the differences in gender, rural and urban areas, among others.

2. The participants suggested reviewing the CDI Regional Funds in the ATREDD+ and in the areas where Financiera Nacional is helping to channel funds.

3. The participants suggested reviewing the new tax provisions that could complicate access to financial services.

4. Regarding the environmental funds identified, the participants suggested searching for existing information about their results or impact.

Monitoring 1. The participants suggested adding the civil initiative “Jalisco cómo vamos” as a potential collaboration platform.

2. The participants suggested reviewing the experience of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor regarding forest coverage monitoring in the areas of the Lacandona Rainforest Special Program (PESL) and the Yucatan Peninsula Special Program (PEPY).

The comments from the webinar helped to enrich the initial report and also to better understand the four components of a benefit sharing mechanism within the Mexican context. It also served to adapt some of the OAF questions to the national context and as a result improve the tool applied at the Regional Workshop in Merida.

24

IV. OAF Regional Application Workshop – Mérida, Yucatán

The OAF Regional Application Workshop was held on January 12-13, 2015 in the city of Mérida, Yucatán. The

main objective was to implement a scoring exercise for the key components of a REDD+ benefit sharing

mechanism according to the methodology designed by PROFOR; and to prioritize the enabling activities to

further its design and implementation. The workshop lasted two days with the participation of 18

representatives from the federal and state government, CSOs, and forest producers.

Following the OAF methodological framework, prior to the workshop we proceeded to socialize the Initial

Report with input from the webinar and the OAF tool adapted to Mexico. The scoring methodology tool

consists of a questionnaire that evaluates the existence and quality of the elements of each of the four key

components. The participants rate the national capacities of a country and assign a score. Then, the tool

generates a score for each component equal to a percentage of the maximum score (100%22). The

percentages indicate the degree of effectiveness with which the country’s institutions could implement a

specific type of benefit sharing mechanism given the current conditions. The percentages also indicate the

elements that could need more support. The second phase of the OAF application is a set of enabling actions

that provide guidance for the tasks needed for the effective implementation of the selected benefit sharing

mechanism.

The workshop objectives, the explanation of the methodology, and the Initial Report were the documents

provided to the participants to update and help them determine their rating scores. The scoring exercise had

two phases: an individual and a collective phase. The first was achieved through materials distributed to the

participants. The second was the result of a group effort.

As suggested by the groups working in the systematization of the scores, some questions were eliminated.

The condition to remove a question was if in the individual evaluations at least half of the group participants

failed to answer it or labeled it as "not applicable". Naturally, the calculation parameters changed. As a result

of the elimination of certain questions, the maximum overall score and each component score, changed. The

scores (and percentages) presented here have been adjusted to the new maximum scores. For more details,

see Chapter 3 in Annex III: Regional Workshop Report.

The table below shows the results of the collective scores for a national mechanism based on performance.

The table displays the scores for the four components and subcomponents. The scores for each component

correspond to each workgroup. The spokesperson for each group presented the scores at the beginning of the

second day.

22 The OAF adaptation in Mexico included changing the calculation parameters, that is, some questions that were not

applicable to the Mexican context were eliminated. Therefore, the maximum score changed. The scores presented here

have been adjusted according to this modification.

25

Table 2 Group Scores for a National Benefit Sharing Mechanism

Element

National Performance-based Mechanism

Maximum

Score (M)

Group

Score (R)

Group %

(R/M x

100)

1. Institutional capacity of the government, civil society,

community and private sector 32 17.5 55%

Capacity of the suggested organizations to implement

the benefit sharing mechanism.

16

9.5

59%

Capacity of the CSOs 10 6 60%

Capacity of the forest-based communities 2 1 50%

Capacity of the private sector 4 1 25%

2. National legal framework relevant to REDD+ 22 13 59%

3. Fund management capacity and experience 20 9 45%

4. Monitoring capacity and experience 16 9 56%

Global Totals: 90 49 54%

The overall OAF score for a national benefit sharing mechanism based on performance was 54%, which is in

the 50-75 range. According to the result interpretation table23, this means that the REDD+ benefit sharing

mechanism may be viable in the medium term (2-3 years) if the corresponding enabling actions are carried

out. The table shows that the component with the highest score was the REDD+ National Legal Framework

(59%). The component with the lowest score was Fund Management Capacity and Experience (45%).

23 Chapter 3 in the Annex: OAF Regional Application Workshop Report.

26

The scores for the implementation of a sub-national benefit sharing mechanism were as follows:

Table 3 Group Scores for a Sub-National Benefit Sharing Mechanism

Element

Sub-National Performance-based Mechanism

Maximum

Score (M)

Group

Score (R)

Group %

(R/M x 100 %)

1. Institutional capacity of the government, civil society,

community and private sector 36 18.5 51%

Capacity of the suggested organizations to

implement the benefit sharing mechanism.

16

9

56%

Capacity of the CSOs 10 5 50%

Capacity of the forest-based communities 2 1 50%

Capacity of the private sector 4 0.5 13%

Additional considerations 4 3 75%

2. National legal framework relevant to REDD+ 14 2.5 18%

3. Fund management capacity and experience 20 6 30%

4. Monitoring capacity and experience 12 6 50%

Global Totals: 82 33 40%

The overall score for a sub-national benefit sharing mechanism was 40%. This score is in the 26-50 range

(one level below the national mechanism). This indicates that the REDD+ sub-national benefit sharing

mechanism is not currently feasible but could be in long-term (3-5+ years) if the corresponding enabling

actions are implemented. Component 1 received the highest score (51%); followed by Component 4 (50%).

Both elements were rated above the average. The elements below average were Fund Management Capacity

and Experience (30%) and Sub-National REDD+ Legal Framework (18%); the latter had the most deficiencies.

The second day of the workshop was devoted to the presentation of the results described above and to

implement the second step of the OAF methodology: prioritization of the enabling actions. Given the scores

mentioned above, the OAF tool provided a set of actions that if implemented would make the selected benefit

sharing mechanism more feasible.

The enabling actions provided by the OAF tool are activities and tasks that should be carried out by a

responsible entity in the context of the REDD+ design and implementation in Mexico. To complete what should

be done, the necessary inputs, the entities involved, and a time estimate should be identified.

27

The work groups analyzed a set of actions corresponding to the component they evaluated and prioritized the

actions deemed more necessary for the country's readiness. The enabling actions selected were as follows24:

Table 4 Enabling Actions from the Regional Workshop for a National Benefit Sharing Mechanism

Element High Priority Enabling

Actions

1. Institutional capacity of the government, civil society, community and

private sector. 5

2. National legal framework relevant to REDD+ 4

3. Fund management capacity and experience -

4. Monitoring capacity and experience 3

Global Totals: 12

The table below shows some examples from the prioritization exercise including an OAF question that

obtained a low score and an enabling action about what should be done:

Table 5 Example of Enabling Actions from the Regional Workshop

Component Target Enabling Action

Institutional

Capacity

Effective collaboration between the

national and state government in terms of

sustainable territorial management and

forest conservation.

Design new binding tools: establish a formal

agreement between the federal and state

governments to implement the REDD+

strategies.

Legal

Framework

CONAFOR and the state governments

have the capacity to define the regulations

to design and operate funds, providing a

solid legal framework, so that the

institutional structures are able to operate

efficiently, effectively, and fairly.

Analyze the results of previous experiences

designing and operating funds; and the

experience of other entities, their result and

the quality of their management. Based on

this analysis, extract lessons learned for

institutional design.

Fund

Management

Community groups capable of opening

accounts in the local bank without

burdensome requirements (e.g. no need

for deposits) or having other available

means to transfer funds.

Analyze the opportunities and potential risks

for banks participating in REDD+. Use this

analysis to provide incentives to participate

in the implementation of the benefit sharing

mechanism.

Monitoring The government is capable of providing

frequent and public reports about the

Create a tool to monitor and report spending

associated with REDD+ in all its phases.

24 Group 3 was not able to finish the prioritization exercise. The actions with the lowest scores were considered a priority

for the next stages.

28

Capacity monitoring of public program spending in

the environmental and agricultural sector;

and report about the impact of REDD+

activities in public programs/policies.

Assign a communication team to submit

regular reports about disbursement of

benefits through accessible communication

channels.

Workshop Notes In addition to scoring and prioritizing the enabling actions, the workshop had other results from the comments

and contributions of the participants. Below is a summary of the notes from the workshop:

At the national level, the OAF application generated a 54% score.

At the sub-national level, however, the score was 40%.

The difference between scores (national and sub-national) illustrates the perception of the

participants in terms of the existing capacities and tools among the government and regional

stakeholders (state and interstate).

The most important and urgent enabling actions according to the perception of the workshop

participants, are related to inter-agency coordination.

CONAFOR is primarily responsible for carrying out the enabling actions as a leader in the sector.

The enabling actions prioritized in this workshop were the input used for validation at the national workshop.

29

V. National Workshop

The national workshop was held during the final phase of the project "Assessment of Options for Effective

Benefit Sharing Mechanisms for the REDD+ Initiative in Mexico", on March 26th, 2015 with the following

objectives:

1) Review the preliminary design of the implementation framework for the Emission Reduction

Initiative (IRE).

2) Describe the actions that will promote the viability of a benefit sharing mechanism for the four

key components of the methodology designed by PROFOR.

The workshop had 32 participants: nine from the federal government, six from the state governments, 13 from

civil society organizations and forest producers, and four from academia. The workshop lasted one day and

had three sections: 1) Presentation of the project results. 2) Discussion of the IRE Implementation Framework

and 3) Discussion of the enabling actions identified in the regional workshop to define the roadmap elements

and details.

The implementation of the IRE will be the first experience in Mexico participating in a REDD+ results-based

payment mechanism. The implementation framework for this initiative assigns roles and responsibilities to

specific entities involved in the REDD+ strategy and particularly in the benefit sharing mechanism. This

assignment of roles leads to the questioning of the current and required capacities to perform them, and in this

sense the OAF tool provides valuable recommendations. For this reason, we considered important to address

the discussion of the design of this initiative within the framework of the OAF application. This issue was

addressed in Section 3 of the workshop. The capacities of the responsible agencies were not discussed;

instead, the roles that the agencies should play in the IRE implementation process were evaluated. CONAFOR

requested the evaluation of two specific aspects related to channeling funds from the international to the

national level and from the national to the regional level. The results of this consultation with the participants

may be found in the Annex: National Workshop Report.

Workshop Dynamics

The dynamic of Section 2 of the workshop used a flowchart prepared by the consultants based on the ER-PIN

and the interviews with CONAFOR. The flowchart and its description are presented in Annex I: Initial Report.25

The first activity was a presentation and plenary discussion of the flowchart for the IRE Implementation

Framework. The table below shows a summary of the comments from the workshop participants regarding the

processes and stakeholders involved. The results may be consulted further in Annex III: Regional Workshop

Report.

25 The Initial Report is available in Spanish, upon request.

30

Table 6 Discussion of the IRE Implementation Framework

IRE Implementation Framework Stakeholder / Process

Comments from the Participants

Support for the IRE implementing Agents

The flowchart does not indicate if there will be financial support for the implementing agents to prepare the investment plans.

The state rural development units, the SAGARPA state delegations, and the state forest/environmental sectors should initially acknowledge the implementing agents.

Characteristics and Capabilities of the Implementing Agents

Defining the implementing agents (what they are, how they are formed, what they do) is important in the context of the state and sector agreements. They are a key figure for the nation’s rural development and not only for REDD+.

The recognized implementing agents (inter-municipal boards and CONABIO via the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor) meet the established characteristics to function as implementing agents, but this does not mean that they are the only ones. Is it possible to create others according to the specific conditions of each state? A key aspect is that they should be public agents.

The implementing agents are not expected to be capable of reporting reduced emissions; instead they should report results and management issues.

Ideally, the implementing agent will not be in charge of result-based payments. Even if the implementing agent receives resources, these should be used to formulate and support the implementation of the investment plans.

The jurisdictional fund should be responsible for disbursing resources to the participating communities or populations.

Participation of the State Governments

The state governments should participate in monitoring and reporting to guarantee the emission reductions at the local level; the state capacities and tools are not homogeneous and should be diagnosed and strengthened.

Two aspects that summarize much of the reflections from the IRE Implementation Framework are:

1. Nature and role of the implementing agents: the implementing agents should not take the

responsibility to disburse the funds and should maintain their technical role in the formulation and

implementation of investment plans. The disbursement of resources requires different capabilities that

the implementing agents do not currently have; they should not be given a double role: technical and

administrative.

2. Need for a state agency, fund or state financial instrument with a governance structure, criteria,

principles, representation, and accountability tools to transfer funds from the national entity to the

regions. The state government should not receive the transfers; but since the state government will

take on responsibilities to implement the REDD+ strategy it should participate in the distribution of

benefits (also consider different results with similar efforts).

Considering these two conclusions agreed by the group, the flowchart was modified and shown at the end of

this chapter (figure 2).

31

The following charts shows the opinion of the workshop participants regarding three questions around the topic

of channeling of funds at the international, national, and regional levels. This summary includes the responses,

comments, and recommendations received.26

Question 1: What would be the implications for a REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism if the resources are considered federal public resources or trust fund resources?

Resources managed via a national trust fund would have the following advantages: - More disbursement flexibility. - Not subject to the annual budget cycle of public federal resources. - Less bureaucratic requirements. - More flexibility in investment procedures and criteria. - More possibility to adapt fund channeling to the local or regional conditions.

If the option to channel funds via a federal trust fund is chosen, the following should be considered:

- Increased monitoring and auditing due to the risk of resource diversion. - Ensure wide participation in the decision-making process. - Ensure that the trust regulations include the needs to channel REDD+ result-based payments.

Question 2: In your experience, what design elements improve the efficiency and equity of the process to disburse funds to the final beneficiaries?

Essential elements for a good disbursement process to the final beneficiaries (in this context, the final beneficiaries will be the final receptors of the investment resources and the REDD+ result-based payment):

- Clear operational norms. - Transparency throughout the process (chain of custody of the resources at the local, regional and

federal level). - External audits. - Timely evaluations; including institutional learning processes (improvement cycle). - Disbursement of resources with flexible/regionally adapted schedules. - Ensure the necessary capacity of the parties: to design the norms, and for the implementation and

monitoring.

Question 3: What would be the implications if the REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism is centralized? What should be the role of the state governments?

Advantages of a centralized scheme: - Better control over resource distribution. - Less risk of corruption. - Facilitates auditing and accountability. - The federal government has more institutional capacity than the state governments.

Disadvantages of a centralized scheme:

- Risk of political use of the resources and changes in the administration (same risks at the state level).

- Lose sight of regional particularities.

26 At the start of the OAF process, CONAFOR had already commissioned a separate study to look into the details of a macro financial

flow structure including the issue of location of the fund into which carbón payments would be received. Thus, CONAFOR suggested

that the OAF should focus on the access to financial services aspects under its fund-management pillar”. However, at CONAFOR’S

request, the 3 questions here were presented at the final national workshop. Workshop participants debated the pros and cons but no

definite conclusions were drawn.

32

- Risk of making unilateral decisions. Suggested roles at the state level:

- Monitor the results of the investment plans. - Participate in the planning and implementation of the investment plans. - Participate in identifying and selecting the implementing agents.

Section 3 of the workshop: Discussion of the enabling actions identified in the regional workshop. The

objective was to provide details for the actions needed to improve the viability of a benefit sharing mechanism

and generate a roadmap. The dynamic of this exercise was a group discussion to validate the enabling actions

labeled as a priority by the regional participants, and describe them in terms of the stakeholders, mechanisms

and processes. The final result is a set of actions or tasks considered of the highest priority by the participants

in the national and regional workshop. The table below summarizes the results. The final version is presented

as a Roadmap in the next section of this document.

Table 7: Summary of the Priority Actions from the National Workshop

OAF Component

# of Priority Enabling Actions27

Action Areas

Institutional Capacity

5

Participation of rural development entities and agencies, specifically the agricultural sector, in the development of policies and coordination issues.

Effective collaboration between the national and state governments regarding sustainable territorial management and forest conservation.

Strengthening forest-based communities.

Strengthening the CSOs.

Coordination between the government and CSOs.

Legal Framework

4

Inter-sectoral coordination to align various sector development plans.

Legal framework and tools to implement community consultations.

Legal framework and implementation tools that fully support public access to information.

Capacity to define regulations to design and operate the funds.

Fund Management Capacity and Experience

3

Facilitate access to financial services for community groups participating in REDD+.

Identify the necessary changes to improve credit conditions for ATREDD beneficiaries.

27 The number of enabling actions slightly changed the results of the regional workshop because the national participants considered other

action areas as very necessary.

33

Official definition of the entity responsible for the transfers.

Monitoring Capacity and Experience

3

Publication of environmental program spending reports and reports of the impacts of the territorial management activities.

Decentralization of the monitoring systems

Strengthen local institutions and NGOs to help the benefit sharing mechanisms and monitor the socioeconomic impacts.

34

Figure 2 Preliminary Flowchart of the IRE Implementation Framework

YES

YES

YES

35

VI. Roadmap and Final Conclusions

The ultimate goal of this project is to develop a working tool to guide the implementation of the necessary

actions to improve the viability of the implementation of a benefit-sharing mechanism being considered in

Mexico. The roadmap provides actions to address the gaps or weaknesses identified in the four key

components. It was based on the results of each project milestone: initial report, webinar, regional workshop,

and national workshop.

The result of the national workshop consisted of a series of actions and tasks to fill a gap or improve the

capacity of the stakeholders involved in the REDD+ design and implementation in Mexico.

Each result was associated with a responsible entity,

Identification of the entities involved in the implementation,

Proposals for the necessary inputs or information, and

In some cases, an estimate of the time needed to implement each task was presented.

At first, the results were classified according to the four main OAF components: institutional capacity, legal

framework, fund management capacity and experience, and monitoring capacity and experience., However, in

consideration of comments by CONAFOR, subsequently, the enabling actions were reclassified in six

agendas, as follows:

1. Coordination

2. Applied Research

3. Strengthening Public Entities, CSOs, Implementing Agents and Forest-based Communities

4. Tool Development

5. Training

6. Adjustments to the Legal Framework and Necessary Responsibilities.

The reclassification was an effort to align actions in the road-map, under the 4 pillars of the OAF,to those

CONAFOR is most familiar with and hence to facilitate the adoption of the recommendations of this exercis.

In the final road-map below, the enabling actions are presented next to their objective, the entity responsible

for implementing it, the entities involved in the process, and an estimate of the time frame for CONAFOR to

validate the action before its corresponding adoption. It should be noted that no specific sequencing of the

actions identified was discussed or proposed.

We hope this product helps CONAFOR with its institutional management and REDD+ leadership, and to help

propose actions to other institutions.

36

Enabling actions to improve the viability of the REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms in Mexico

Given the reclassification of enabling actions into agendas based on the OAF components, some challenges will be associated with

enabling actions corresponding to different agendas.

Agenda 1. Coordination

Entities responsible for specific tasks

Challenges Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time

There is effective collaboration between the national and state governments for sustainable territorial management and forest conservation.

CONAFOR / SAGARPA, forest and agricultural areas of the state governments.

1) 6 months, 2) Indefinite

CONAFOR and the state governments are capable of defining the norms to design and operate funds, providing a solid legal framework, so that the institutional structures are able to operate efficiently, effectively and fairly. Also in Agenda 2.

CONAFOR / State Governments, APDT´s, CSOs.

6 months

25. A memorandum of understanding between SAGARPA, CONAFOR and the State Forestry Commission will be signed in Oaxaca. 26. Refers to a study mentioned in this document. See Applied Research Agenda

CICC (national)

State governments

(Ministry of Environment)

SEMARNAT

CONAFOR

CIDRS (national)

GT-REDD+ (national)

CONAFOR and the state governments should receive advice regarding institutional and financial design, to implement best

practices guidelines26

and define the jurisdictional funds.

1) Establish a formal agreement between the federal and

state governments to implement REDD+ strategies, e.g.

memorandum of understanding, political agreement or

other cooperation instrument25

.

2) Strengthen regional institucional arrangements.

37

Agenda 1. Coordination

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time Existence of public or private entities with experience in low interest/long-term loans, and with risk tolerance for community groups, individuals, social enterprises and the private sector. Also in Agenda 2.

CONAFOR / FIRA, FND, FINDECA and other local financial agencies.

12 months (considering the ongoing work along this line via FIP)

Effective coordination between national agencies with relevant mandates for the benefit sharing mechanism (i.e. between CONAFOR, SAGARPA and CONABIO)

CONAFOR and SAGARPA / SAGARPA (Rural Planning and Development).

1) 12 months, 2) 12 months, 3) 12 months, 4) Indefinite

CONAFOR and the state governments develop a cooperation agenda with micro-credit agencies and

development banks experienced in granting long-term loans and having a higher risk tolerance.

1) Activate the participation of the agricultural sector in the process to prepare the state REDD+ strategies and

incorporate the territorial vision.

2) Improve the link between the CIDRS and CICC.

3 Reactivate the territorial projects work group within the CIDRS.

4) The state GT-REDD+ are able to report to both commissions (CIDRS and CICC).

38

Agenda 1. Coordination

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time

Existence of effective coordination mechanisms between the environmental and agricultural agencies, in order to align/incorporate the objectives of the REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms to the sectoral development plans or the National Development Plan (NDP).

SEMARNAT

(Climate Change

Unit)/CONAFOR,

CICC, GT-

REDD+, CIDRS.

1) 3 years (next six years) 2) Indefinite, 3) Indefinite

The federal Government is capable of engaging the CSOs and the private sector in the development and implementation of sustainable territorial development policies at the central level.

CONAFOR/state

governments,

producer

organizations, and

municipalities.

12 months

1) Ensure that SEMARNAT considers REDD+ and the

benefit sharing mechanisms in its proposals to the NDP

(next six years).

2) Build on existing interagency arrangements (CICC,

CIDRS, GT REDD+) to define the mechanisms and

planning tools to ensure consistency between the REDD+

objectives, REDD+ benefit sharing, and sectoral

programs.

3) Reactivate the territorial project work group within the

CIDRS.

Strengthen/reactivate/encourage the current coordination

spaces established by various laws (LDRS, LGDFS, etc.)

39

Agenda 1. Coordination

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time

Community groups are able to open accounts at the local bank without burdensome requirements (e.g. No deposits) or have other means of transferring funds

CONAFOR, SAGARPA, SEDATU /CNBV, and other financial agencies.

1) 4 months after implementing the Applied Research Agenda, 2) 4 months (some initiatives are already underway)

27. The mechanisms to transfer funds should consider the community microfinance or credit agencies already established in the different locations. 28. Based on a study mentioned in Applied Research. 29. The regional worksheet could include the business development areas of public banks, private banks or other non-banking financial service providers. 30. National Bank and Securities Commission. 31. In order for the transfer means (banks, financial agencies, etc) to be close to the people using them.

1) Develop a worksheet to ensure that the beneficiaries of REDD+ result-based payment schemes have the means to

transfer funds 27,28,29.

2) Establish a collaboration agreement with the CNBV30

and BANSEFI, to promote a financial culture/inclusion in

the rural sector 31

.

40

Enabling actions to improve the viability of the distribution mechanisms of REDD + benefits in Mexico

Agenda 2. Applied Research

Entities responsible for specific tasks

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time Organizations of producers and forest-based communities have sufficient technical, forest management, and conservation capacity to support, monitor and report REDD+ initiative projects and related activities at the local level, using easy to follow guidelines. Also in Agendas 3 and 4.

CONAFOR / civil society networks, producer organizations.

4 months (consider the differences in the ATREDD+)

CSOs have sufficient knowledge and technical capacity to participate in territorial planning, decision-making and program implementation at the state level.

CONAFOR / state governments, producer organizations and municipalities.

5 months

CONAFOR

SEMARNAT

State Governments (Ministry of the Environment)

GT-REDD+ (national)

CICC (national)

CIDRS (national)

Conduct a study to identify the main technical strengthening needs among the producer organizations

and forest-based communities in the ATREDD+.

Map the CSOs, producer organizations, private agents, universities and research centers, to identify their

capacities for community work, forest management projects, forest legislation awareness, use of GIS tools for

forest monitoring, etc.

41

Agenda 2. Applied Research

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time CONAFOR and the state governments are capable of defining the norms to design and operate funds, providing a solid legal framework, so that the institutional structures are able to operate efficiently, effectively and fairly. Also in Agenda 1.

CONAFOR/state governments, APDT, CSOs.

4 months

Community groups are able to open accounts at the local bank without burdensome requirements (e.g. No deposits) or have other means of transferring funds. Also in Agenda 1.

CONAFOR, SAGARPA, SEDATU /CNBV, and other financial institutions.

6 months

The federal government is capable of engaging the CSOs and the private sector in the development and implementation of sustainable territorial development policies at the central level. Also in Agenda 1.

CONAFOR, SAGARPA/state governments, producer organizations, civil society.

12 months

32. Consider the lessons learned from the creation of the Peninsular Climate Change Fund (FPCC). 33. Participatory diagnosis and community consultation.

Conduct a study to compile best practices for the design and operation of national and international

environmental funds32

.

Develop a map/diagnosis of funding sources and financial mechanisms for sustainable rural development in

ATREDD+ regions33

.

Design incentives so that spaces such as the Municipal Councils for Sustainable Rural Development assume or

adopt the REDD+ agenda.

42

Agenda 2. Applied Research

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time

Existence of public or private entities with experience in low interest/long-term loans, and with risk tolerance for community groups, individuals, social enterprises and the private sector. Also in Agenda 1.

CONAFOR/ FIRA, FND, FINDECA and other local financial agents.

1) 5 months, 2) 3 months, 3) 5 months

Capacity to decentralize the monitoring systems transferring them to local institutions or NGOs, in order to help the benefit-sharing mechanisms and monitor the socioeconomic impact. Also in Agendas 4 and 5.

CONAFOR and state governments/ municipalities and Inter-municipal Boards , academia, local communities

3 months

34. Input to map the credit conditions of the public, private and social institutions in the ATREDD+. 35. Map the financing sources for REDD + in Chiapas and Cutzamala, AMREDD+. 36. Review lessons learned in the federal public programs already serving ATREDD+ regions to learn about the coverage and the possibility of using their structures (PROSPERA program). 37. Progress report of the joint efforts of CONAFOR and Financiera Rural with the Financial Inclusion Forestry Sector Fund (FOSEFOR). 38. Progress report of the joint efforts of CONAFOR and FIRA with the National Forest Fund. 39. The stakeholders could be the CSOs, municipal governments, inter-municipal partnerships, private sector organizations, among others.

1) Systematize the existing information about the credit conditions established by the public, private and social

institutions in the ATREDD+34,35

.

2) Identify the necessary changes to improve credit conditions for the ATREDD+ beneficiaries, considering the

risk conditions and interest rates.

3) Conduct a study of the financial exclusion in ATREDD+

polygons; using existing CNVB data 37, 38

.

Develop a map/diagnosis of the stakeholders having monitoring capabilities (program, socioeconomic and

forest monitoring) to identify gaps, strengths, and

weaknesses39

.

43

Enabling actions to improve the viability of the distribution mechanisms of REDD + benefits in Mexico

Agenda 3. Strengthening Public Entities (CONAFOR, CONABIO, SAGARPA), CSOs, I.A., Ejidos and Communities

Entities responsible for specific tasks

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time

CSOs have sufficient knowledge and technical capacity to participate in territorial planning, decision-making and program implementation at the state level. Also in Agenda 2.

CONAFOR/ State Governments, CSOs, producer organizations and municipalities.

1) 10 months, 2) Indefinite 3) Indefinite

CONAFOR

SEMARNAT

State Governments (Ministry of the Environment)

GT-REDD+ (national)

CICC (national)

CIDRS (national)

1) Propose CSO strengthening mechanisms i.e. financing, information sharing, workshops, logistical support and transportation, technical capacity building programs.

2) Improve the financial stability of the operating structures in the CSOs already trained.

3) Create mechanisms for the recognition and leadership of the Implementing Agent in their work areas, and bring

together the CSOs to work on specific agendas.

44

Agenda 3

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time

Organizations of producers and forest-based communities have sufficient technical, forest management, and conservation capacity to support, monitor and report on REDD+ initiative projects and related activities at the local level, using easy to follow guidelines. Also in Agendas 2 and 4.

CONAFOR /civil society networks, producer organizations.

Indefinite

Government offices with physical presence and capacity, with staff to engage and work effectively in forest policy and decision -making with community groups and the private sector.

CONAFOR/GT-REDD+, municipalities, producer organizations and CSOs.

1) Indefinite, 2) 6 months

Develop the technical capacity of the ejidos, communities and producer associations to manage activities oriented

to good territorial management.

1) Link the operational staff with the institutional action lines, granting them specific cross section responsibilities.

2) Strengthen field staff to perform roles in cross section territorial interventions.

45

Enabling actions to improve the viability of the distribution mechanisms of REDD + benefits in Mexico

Agenda 4. Tool Development

Entities responsible for specific tasks

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time

Organizations of producers and forest-based communities have sufficient technical, forest management, and conservation capacity to support, monitor and report on REDD+ initiative projects and related activities at the local level, using easy to follow guidelines. Also in Agendas 2 and 3.

CONAFOR / State governments, civil society networks, producer organizations, academia.

Ongoing process

CONAFOR

SEMARNAT

State Governments (Ministry of the Environment)

GT-REDD+ (national)

CICC (national)

CIDRS (national)

FCC

(national)

Establish a work group with representatives from the government, CSOs, and academia to develop easy to use guidelines for forest monitoring, carbon monitoring; and socioeconomic indicators for the ejidos and forest-based

communities.

46

Agenda 4.

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time

Government capable of providing frequent and public monitoring reports, reports of public program spending, environmental and agricultural sector reports; and reports of public policy/program impacts related to REDD+ activities.

National Fund (FCC )/CONAFOR, CONABIO, FND, SEMARNAT, SAGARPA, SEDATU, CONEVAL , External evaluators (academia).

1) 6 months, 2) 6 months

Capacity to decentralize the monitoring systems and transferring them to local institutions or NGOs, in order to help the benefit-sharing mechanisms and monitor the socioeconomic impact. Also in Agendas 2 and 5.

CONAFOR CONABIO/INEGI , SMAAS, SEMA, SEDUMA, municipalities, Inter-municipal Boards, Maya Rainforest Observatory, academia, local communities.

4 months

40. The expense reports should include those exercised by the decentralized organs, implementing units and entities within support programs and invite the CSOs involved in the REDD+ implementation to provide information related to their corresponding expenses. 41. For example, an online platform to report expenses; user-friendly and with regular updates. 42. The evaluation should be conducted by external evaluators with support from CONEVAL and civil society; and be accessible to the audience.

1) Create a monitoring and reporting tool for the costs associated with all the REDD+ phases, managed by the

national fund or jurisdictional funds; may be coordinated

by the GT–REDD+40,41

.

2) Develop a tool for the Implementing Agents to evaluate the annual impact of the Investment Plans and

REDD+ related public programs/policies42

.

Develop a standardized monitoring process and an operating manual detailing the monitoring roles and

responsibilities (monitoring guideline for direct users).

47

Enabling actions to improve the viability of the distribution mechanisms of REDD + benefits in Mexico

Agenda 5. Training

Entities responsible for specific tasks

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time The legal framework and its implementation tools fully support public access to information. Also in Agenda 6.

CONAFOR/IFAI, SEMARNAT, CONAFOR, CDI, state governments.

12-24 months

Capacity to decentralize the monitoring systems and transferring them to local institutions or NGOs, to help the benefit-sharing mechanisms and monitor the socioeconomic impact. Also in Agendas 2 and 4.

CONAFOR and CONABIO / INEGI, SMAAS, SEMA, SEDUMA, municipalities, Inter-municipal Boards, Maya Rainforest Observatory, academia, local communities.

1) 6 months, 2) 3 months

43. Based on the mapping indicated in the Applied Research Agenda. 44. A methodology described in the Tool Development Agenda. 45. In the case of gaps in monitoring stakeholders, develop a periodic/permanent monitoring capacity building program.

CONAFOR

Implement mechanisms for community capacity building in order for communities to exercise their right to access

information and effectively guarantee this right.

1) Develop training programs for potential monitoring

stakeholders43

, to socialize the methodology for program monitoring, socioeconomic monitoring, and forestry

monitoring44,45

.

2) Create incentives (eg institutional culture, a requirement to access the performance-based payment)

to monitor territorial actions.

48

Enabling actions to improve the viability of the distribution mechanisms of REDD + benefits in Mexico

Agenda 6. Adjustment of the Legal Framework and Necessary Responsibilities

Entities responsible for specific tasks

Objective Enabling Actions Responsible /

Entity Involved

Estimated Implementation

Time

The legal framework and its implementation tools fully support public access to information; promote discussion of forest policies; and impose sanctions for failure to comply with the obligation to provide access to information. Also in Agenda 5.

CONAFOR/IFAI, SEMARNAT, CONAFOR, CDI, state governments.

1) Indefinite, 2) Indefinite

Establish a legal framework and implementation tools for community consultations, to obtain their consent regarding land use decisions and benefit sharing agreements affecting forest lands where the communities hold customary or formal rights.

CDI and CONAFOR/ legislative power, CSOs, communities and indigenous people, state governments.

12 months

CONAFOR SEMARNAT CDI

1) Establish formal public consultation periods for all new

forest policies introduced.

2) Review and clarify the legal framework and sanctions for failure to disclose information or misleading the

public.

Build consultation norms emphasizing the right to access the information and the necessary implementation

mechanisms.

47

Final Project Notes The road map presented in the previous section of this document contains enabling actions resulting from the

project completion. Below is a summary of the enabling actions (identified as high priority by the participants of

the workshops), that could help address the challenges and gaps.

Institutional Capacity Enabling Action Aimed to

To facilitate the participation of rural development entities and organizations, specifically the agricultural sector, in policy development and coordination issues.

Strengthen the coordination spaces between CIDRS and CICC; reactivate the Territorial Projects Work Group.

To facilitate the effective collaboration between the national and state governments in terms of sustainable management of the territory and forest conservation.

Establish a formal agreement between the federal and state governments.

Legal Framework Enabling Action Aimed to

To facilitate inter-sectoral coordination to align sectoral development plans.

Take advantage of existing inter-agency arrangements (CICC, CIDRS, GT REDD+) to define planning mechanisms or tools that guarantee consistency between the REDD+ objectives, REDD+ benefit sharing, and sectoral programs.

To facilitate a legal framework and enforcement tools that fully support public access to information.

Implement community capacity building mechanism so that the communities are able to exercise their right to access the information.

To facilitate the capacity to define legal norms to design and operate funds.

Conduct a study that collects best practices to design and operate national and international environmental funds and guide CONAFOR and the state governments in the definition of jurisdictional funds.

Fund Management Capacity and Experience Enabling Action Aimed to

To facilitate access to financial services for community groups participating in REDD+.

Map the necessary sources and financial mechanisms to design a work sheet and draft agreements with a wide range of financial institutions. Agreement with the National Bank and Securities Commission to promote a financial culture in the rural sector.

Monitoring Capacity and Experience Enabling Action Aimed to

Publish spending reports for environmental programs and territorial activity impact reports.

Create a monitoring tool for REDD+ related expenses managed by the national fund or jurisdictional funds. Develop a tool for the Implementing Agent for the annual impact evaluation of the Investment Plans.

Decentralization of the monitoring systems

Develop a standardized monitoring process and an operating manual (monitoring guide for direct users); and strengthen local institutions to assist the benefit sharing mechanisms, and monitor the socioeconomic impact (programs and incentives).

48

Finally, we would like to include the following observations regarding the project and the final roadmap

outcome:

Some of the proposed enabling actions are required to strengthen mechanisms already in place, i.e. the

forest-based community technical capacity building programs. In this regard, the enabling action may be

understood as the need to expand the programs in terms of the amount of beneficiaries and the regions

covered.

We were not able to evaluate the entity responsible for transferring the payments from the national to the

regional level, because this entity has not been defined yet. Therefore, the entity that will be making these

transfers should be officially defined.

49

Taller Mérida Asistencia

1 Juan Manuel Herrera Gloria X

2 Gisela Hernández X

3 Hugo A. Galletti X

4 Salvador Anta x

5 Ana Rosa Parra x

6 Deyner Rafael Borges Ku x

7 Jose Luciano Serralta Uxul x

8 María Antonieta Bocanegra x

9 Iván Zúñiga x

10 Roger Rivero x

11 Norberto Barahona (+2p x

12 Jaime Severino Romo

13 Ana Rosa Parra x

14 Roberto Vallejo x

15 Martha Paola Perez Marrufo x

16 Saúl Salcedo X

17 Armando Lara x

18 Dakar Villafana x

19 Claudio Franco Chulín X

20 Sebastien Proust x

21 Andres Sierra Gomez x

22 Ulyses Huesca Tercero x

Annex 1: Taller Regional de aplicación del Marco de Evaluación de

Opciones en México

12 y 13 de enero de 2015. Mérida, Yucatán.

47

NOMBRE INSTITUCIÓN Asistencia

Aguilar Hernández, Mario Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo Territorial del Estado de Jalisco

x

Anta Fonseca, Salvador Consultor en asuntos forestales x

Balderas, Arturo CIGA-UNAM x

Burgoa, Alejandro CTC-REDD+ Oaxaca x

Castillo, Selene PROFOR x

Franco Chulín, Claudio CTC- REDD+ Yucatán x

Frausto Leyva, Juan Manuel Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (FMCN)

x

Hernández Carrillo, Alberto SAGARPA. Subdirección de desarrollo en zonas prioritarias

x

Hernández, Gisela The Nature Conservancy x

Hernández, Mónica CONAFOR. Proyecto México-Noruega

x

Izaguirre, Carolina The Nature Conservancy x

Kishor, Nalin M. PROFOR x

Larios Guzmán, Eder CONAFOR. Proyecto México-Noruega

x

Mauricio Leguizamo, Juan Manuel

CONABIO. CBM x

Michel Fuentes, José María CONAFOR. Proyecto México-Noruega

Mondragón Galicia, Fernando Geoconservación x

Montero Solano, José Antonio Pronatura Sur x

Morfín Ríos, Jorge CONAFOR. Proyecto México-Noruega

Annex 2: Taller Nacional del Marco de Evaluación de Opciones

en México

México DF. 26 marzo 2015

ASISTENTES

48

NOMBRE INSTITUCIÓN Asistencia

Obregón Viloria, Rafael CONABIO. CBM x

Ortega Reyes, Luis SAGARPA. Coordinación General de Ganadería

Paiz, Yves The Nature Conservancy x

Perea Blázquez, Ana Karla CONAFOR. Unidad de Asuntos Internacionales y Fomento Financiero

Pérez González, Carlos Marcelo UZACHI x

Pinto León, Mario CONAFOR. Enlace REDD+ de la Gerencia de Chiapas

x

Ranero Puig, Alejandro CTC- REDD+ Chiapas x

Reyes Carranza, Mariana CONAFOR. Unidad de Asuntos Internacionales y Fomento Financiero

x

Reyes Olguín, Olga Esslin SAGARPA. Subdirección de Control y Operación con las Entidades

Salcedo Salazar, Saúl CONAFOR. Enlace REDD+ de la Gerencia de Yucatán

x

Sánchez Valle, Gustavo Red Mocaf

Segura Lazcano, Jaime SAGARPA. Subsecretaría de Desarrollo Rural

Severino Romo, Jaime CONAFOR. Área de proyectos y mercados forestales de carbono

x

Simonit, Silvio UICN x

Skutch, Margaret CIGA-UNAM x

Tejero Aranda, Ana Coordinadora Estatal de Productores de Café de Oaxaca (CEPCO)

x

Thomson Poo, Daniel Camilo Pronatura Sur x

Vargas Guillen, Adalberto CONAFOR. Gerencia Chiapas

Vega López, Adrián SAGARPA. Dirección general de ganadería

x

Velasco, Anaíd CEMDA

Felipe Ramero CEMDA A.C. X

Sergio Graff Independiente X

María del Valle CONABIO x